The move from the Democratic National Committee to block the release of its own post-election analysis concerning the 2024 election seems shocking but entirely predictable. Averse to unpleasant candor, the Democrats' governing body often functions more like a communications shop than an electoral entity committed to cultivating a volunteer base capable of prevailing at the polls.
A Culture Resistant to Internal Critique
Hesitant to challenge the prevailing attitude demanding unity, the DNC has continued under the Biden-Harris shadow throughout this past year. Making public the findings might have shown that party leaders actually want to promote honest conversation about the errors that paved the way for Donald Trump to return to the White House. Instead, the DNC is proceeding under the pretense that there is little to glean from the tragic debacle from the last cycle.
"Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from what truly matters," a rationale that has been offered for withholding the report.
Critical Problems a Report Would Have Explored
Any valuable post-mortem with any value would confront certain uncomfortable matters. These include:
- Voter Disenchantment: The loss among a significant portion of the electorate who voted for the Democratic ticket in 2020 became a critical factor in the narrowly decided recent race.
- A Decision to Seek Re-election: The stubborn choice of the incumbent to run again, coupled with an extremely delayed step-aside, has been criticized as robbing the party's base of a genuine choice.
- Failing Everyday Americans: Amid inflation, the campaign reportedly accommodating elite contributors while failing to challenge the effects of profit-seeking.
- A Gaza Effect: The failure to shift a stance regarding a ongoing war allegedly caused alienating many voters, especially with youth voters, Arab American communities, and Muslim Americans.
- Eroding Young Voter Backing: Polling data shows a huge decline in votes for the candidate from the youth electorate.
A Pattern Avoiding Accountability
Choosing secrecy is consistent with a recurring tendency of sidestepping difficult realities. It echoes a dynamic in which the vast majority of Democratic officeholder in Congress supported an incumbent's determination to seeking another term until a catastrophic televised debate compelled an exit.
At the same time, large majorities of the electorate were repeatedly informing researchers that they did not want the incumbent to run again.
Campaign Spending Questions
A substantive autopsy might also probe matters regarding financial allocations, including the amounts flowed to high-priced advisors and media firms over the course of a campaign which expended a colossal sum during the general election.
The Broader Implication
At its core, the suppression of the official autopsy points to an allegiance toward the existing power structure responsible for a losing electoral effort. The implication for rank-and-file members – including millions of small donors – is that they do not have a right to understand what the leadership say they discovered from an analysis based on feedback from all states.
An organization unable to publicly examine its mistakes is unlikely to climb out of the cycle that proved so beneficial to the rival party.
